Buckdog

Conservative governments and nuclear reactors. Hmmmmmmm.

Rather a cause for alarm given recent events in Chalk River and the House of Commons.

Leftdog, you've miss read this (as usual). Saskatchewan doesn't have enough demand for a nuke reactor. What Wall wants is to streamline the federal approval process for MINING operations.

Have a look at some of the reference material that's been posted here:
http://www.energyquest4nanticoke.ca/

They been talkin' about shuttin' down Nanticoke coal-chugger and Bruce Power wants to build a nuke plant to replace it.

The manufactured isotope crisis allowed Harper to cripple and discredit the nuclear regulator. That'll help pave the way.

Speculation is that the main reason to hobble the regulator is to get a new nuke plant approved for the tar sands. Gary Lunn is on record saying his main focus as NR Min has been to "streamline" development by means of reducing regulation.

Sask is in a similar position to Alberta but even more tied to the nuclear industry. Most uranium mining is done in Sask. Uranium mining and sales are booming. Uranium prices are way up.

I can't leave without pluggin' the Greens.

The Green Party believes that choices should be economically rational. The best energy choices to respond to the climate crisis should be those that deliver the greatest reduction of GHG per dollar invested. By this criterion, nuclear energy is among the very worst options. Reactors cost billions of dollars, take more than a decade to build, operate unreliably after about the first dozen years of operation, and only produce one type of energy: electricity. Even if the industry were “green and clean” as claimed by the pro-nuclear propaganda efforts, it fails on the economics. Nevertheless, it is neither clean nor green.

Each gigawatt of nuclear energy requires 170 tonnes of uranium. When the uranium is processed into fuel, 250,000 tonnes of carbon are emitted for every 1000 megawatts produced. Nuclear energy produces huge amounts of greenhouse gases.
********************

Nukes can't happen without bigass subsidies. Never have. Never will. The Green platforn sez no more subsidies to the nuke industry.

And no more underwriting of nuke liability insurance. Private insurers will not adequately insure against nuke accidents. Government steps in and insures what the insurance industry finds too risky.

Change the climate in Parliament.

JB

Brad Wall wants to use his cutting emissions excuse to justify building a nuclear reactor. Problem is he also wants to turn northwest Saskatchewan into a tar pond which will quadruple our greenhouse emissions.

Anyone who advocates tearing down our northern forest and turning our lakes into toxic goo, has no concern for the environment and no concern for the people of this province. See the pictures of the tar sand in Saturday's Globe and Mail and you will see the worst environmental damage in the entire world.

Next I would say that nuclear energy is non-renewable, and I believe non-renewable resources are not forms of clean energy.

Next, nuclear energy is more expensive than solar and wind, and since we have more sunshine and wind than anywhere else in the world, would it not make sense to invest our money into renewable energy, rather than non-renewable.

Next, since uranium is non-renewable, wouldn't there be a limit to its supply and eventually be unafordable? Do we know how much uranium there is left in the world and where the price of it will be in 20 or more years?

I can't believe Brad Wall considers himself a good father because he puts his children in sports and dance. Maybe he should be a real good father and consider that he is turning this province into a toxic slew where our children won't be able to raise their own children.

Call me passionate about this issue. But I care about this province. I want to be able to swim and fish in our lakes and I want a leader that cares about these things too!

David: The article does refer to Wall's strategy as referring to "licensing nuclear reactors". From what I can tell, the goal is to encourage reactor construction elsewhere in order to create more demand for uranium mined in SK.

true enough, Jurist. An excellent plan idea.

Remember the 2003 election when the Sask Party drove us nuts with their campaign slogan, "The Saskatchewan Party has a plan to grow the province by 100,000 persons in 10 years"! That plan WAS the construction of a nuclear power reactor somewhere near Saskatoon. The Saskies lost that election and never really did come clean publicly on what the 'plan' entailed. But talk to an honest Sask Party member and they will tell you it was all about a reactor. Maybe Wall has modified the plan since 2003, but they never tell the public what the hell it is they are up to. If they want people like me and others to stop speculating, then they need to honestly tell us what's up!

I think I can stop your speculation right now. Saskatchewan can't afford a reactor. Period.

You guys need to get your facts straight about nuclear power. I suggest looking into other sources. The United States navy has been running nuclear power plants in all of their submarines for 60 years because they are the cheapest, most efficient source of power that allows them to stay under longer with no emissions (yes none). It also requires less fuel (not tonnes) and also wont take forever to build if you have funding. I'm not much of a political type but I do know about nuclear power because I work in the field so please don't criticize me but nuclear power is an option that I think the world is going to have to consider some day. France already has 80% of their total power coming from nuclear power and they have the second lowest emissions in the world from what I've heard but I'm not entirely sure. Thank you for listening and I hope you will reconsider your views.